These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Evolution of the genetic code: the nonsense, antisense, and antinonsense codes make no sense.
    Author: Houen G.
    Journal: Biosystems; 1999 Dec; 54(1-2):39-46. PubMed ID: 10658836.
    Abstract:
    According to the molecular recognition theory, the complementarity of the sense and nonsense DNA strands is reflected in a complementarity of polypeptides and the corresponding nonsense polypeptides. A comparison of the sense and nonsense code matrices, and of the antisense and antinonsense code matrices, either by visual inspection or by comparing the corresponding hydrophobicity matrices (e.g. by simply adding them together), revealed no complementarity of these pairs of matrices in terms of possible attractive physical forces. Instead, it was evident that the codes divide the amino acids into two major groups: hydrophilic and hydrophobic, a division which is directly correlated with the folding property of proteins. A simple primordial genetic code distinguishing between these two types of amino acids would have been capable of generating three-dimensionally folded peptides, which could stabilize coding RNAs by forming ribonucleoprotein complexes. This evolutionary scheme is reflected in the present organisation of information processing and storage in essentially all organisms. RNAs are processed and translated into proteins by ribonucleoproteins, while other steps in information retrieval and processing, such as DNA replication, transcription, protein folding and posttranslational processing, are catalyzed by proteins. This shows that the evolution of DNA as an information storage medium was a secondary event, unrelated to the evolution of the genetic code. From the primordial hydrophilic/hydrophobic (f.ex. Leu/Arg) code, evolution proceeded by introduction of a catalytic amino acid (Ser). The further evolution of the code has mainly served to increase the number of functional hydrophilic amino acids, since there has not been a great advantage in increasing the number of structural, hydrophobic amino acids. At some stage during the evolution of the genetic code, double-stranded DNA was introduced as a maximally safe genetic copy of RNA. This required the action of highly specific enzymes, and was therefore preceded by the refinement of the genetic code. As a conclusion of this evolutionary scheme, it can be inferred that, in general only the sense strand encodes proteins.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]